Chavarria v. Green et al
Filing
34
ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 31 ),ORDER Granting In Part And Denying In Part Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss (Doc. 24 ), ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff's Claims For Damages Against Defendants In Their Official Capacities From This Action, ORDER Requiring Defendants To File Answer Within Thirty Days, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/19/2015. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTHONY CHAVARRIA,
12
13
14
15
1:10-cv-02324-LJO-GSA-PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 31.)
vs.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ RULE
12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
(Doc. 24.)
P. A. GREEN, et al.,
Defendants.
16
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST
DEFENDANTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES FROM THIS ACTION
17
18
19
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO
FILE ANSWER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
20
21
22
Anthony Chavarria (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
23
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
24
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
25
On February 11, 2015, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that
26
Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 31.) On March 13,
27
2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 32.) On the same
28
date, Defendants also filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 33.)
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this
2
Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,
3
including the parties’ objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be
4
supported by the record and proper analysis.
5
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
6
1.
7
8
11, 2015, are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2.
9
10
3.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for damages against
Defendants in their official capacities is GRANTED;
4.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss certain medical claims from Plaintiff’s
Complaint, based on Plaintiff’s abandonment of the claims, is DENIED;
13
14
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on July 28, 2014, is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART;
11
12
The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on February
5.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss certain medical claims from the Complaint,
based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, is DENIED;
15
16
6.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is DENIED;
17
7.
Plaintiff’s claims for damages against Defendants in their official capacities are
18
19
DISMISSED from this action;
8.
20
21
Defendants are required to file an Answer to the Complaint within thirty days of
the date of service of this order; and
9.
This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
March 19, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?